Text Size

Supreme Court Justices pose for a photograph. There's a controversy over who will replace David Souter (first row, far right).
AP Photo

“Kyl really is trusted,” says George. “He could emerge, if he wanted to, with new authority, as leader of the conservative movement.”

“He is in a position where he can really assert some leadership and become the shining star for conservative thought on the judiciary committee,” agrees Bruce Hausknecht, a judicial analyst for Focus on the Family.

But in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday, the Arizona senator tempered expectations for the fight ahead, saying Republican should reserve filibusters to “extraordinary circumstances.”

Republicans, he added, “will distinguish between a liberal judge on one side and one who doesn’t decide cases on the merits and one rather who does on the basis of his or her preconceived ideas."

For Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) – an aggressive questioner in past judicial hearings -- observers say the proceedings offer an opportunity to redeem himself with those angry over his support of moderate Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for the 2010 Senate race.

At the same time, however, Franc notes that – as chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee – Cornyn runs the risk of seeming too politically motivated if he pushes too hard.

“I think he has to be careful about not letting role he plays as head of NRSC predominate over his role in judiciary,” Franc says.

Cornyn did delay Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s confirmation back in January, when he blocked a unanimous consent vote over questions about donors to Bill Clinton’s nonprofit work. (Cornyn’s office did not respond to an interview request.)

Although picking a fight could pay dividends with the party’s base, taking on a popular president’s judicial nominee is not without its risks, notes Christopher Eisgruber, the provost at Princeton who teaches public policy and once clerked for Stevens.

“If you stake out a prominent position on a controversial fight, it can help you or hurt you,” he says. “One thing to keep in mind: Not only can senators make their name on something like this, they can lose their name on something like this.”

Still, some will undoubtedly take the risk – even if it just means treading water with the right.

Take Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): “This is a case where there is danger; because of his leadership role he is expected to be a strong proponent of constitutionalist position,” says George. “If he comes out strongly for that, it’s not that his reputation will be enhanced, but expectations will be fulfilled. But if he comes out weakly, his stock will go down with the base.”

Some legislators, including Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), have already made it clear that they will pursue their task energetically.

“Whether they fall into category of something I think is not such a bad nominee, or a bad nominee, we and other Republicans are going to question the nominee very vigorously,” Grassley said.

“I was very naive about Souter,” he adds. “I thought he was going to be a [Anthony] Kennedy person, and he came out a [John Paul] Stevens person, and I didn’t think that at the time I voted. I am going to be more introspective and more careful.”

I read that John Kyl or some other con threatening filibuster said that we can't have a pick based on "emotions or feeling". Yet the party of NO, truly living up to there new title, don't even know who it is. So what do you call that? I think it's called posturing based on "emotions or feelings". The Republican party are not only hypocrites they are downright laughable.

In plain fact, Republicans have dealt more severly with Clinton nominees than Democrats were permitted with Bush's. At the ends of their terms, Clinton had more judges rejected and more openings left in the judiciary. As for Bork, he was scared by Nixon's night of the long knives, which with his radical ideology, just made him too unpalatable. Thomas had a racy sense of humor even while Joe Biden tried to ease his way. He passed despite some racist bombast because some of the most damning testimony was buried in testimony to staff.

The knee jerk opposition to an unknown nominee may throw red meat to the die hards, but many Americans will look upon it as unpatriotic gamemanship and unprofessional behavior.

In plain fact, Republicans have dealt more severly with Clinton nominees than Democrats were permitted with Bush's. At the ends of their terms, Clinton had more judges rejected and more openings left in the judiciary. As for Bork, he was scared by Nixon's night of the long knives, which with his radical ideology, just made him too unpalatable. Thomas had a racy sense of humor even while Joe Biden tried to ease his way. He passed despite some racist bombast because some of the most damning testimony was buried in testimony to staff.

The knee jerk opposition to an unknown nominee may throw red meat to the die hards, but many Americans will look upon it as unpatriotic gamemanship and unprofessional behavior.

In plain fact, Republicans have dealt more severly with Clinton nominees than Democrats were permitted with Bush's. At the ends of their terms, Clinton had more judges rejected and more openings left in the judiciary. As for Bork, he was scared by Nixon's night of the long knives, which with his radical ideology, just made him too unpalatable. Thomas had a racy sense of humor even while Joe Biden tried to ease his way. He passed despite some racist bombast because some of the most damning testimony was buried in testimony to staff.

The knee jerk opposition to an unknown nominee may throw red meat to the die hards, but many Americans will look upon it as unpatriotic gamemanship and unprofessional behavior.

Got to love the Rethugs. They dont have a Clue who Obama is going to pick but that doesnt matter, they are going to fight tooth and nail against this person anyway. Ya, That makes sense. Kind of like invading Iraq in retalation for 9/11. Stupid Rethugs........................

Why don't we wait until President Obama selects his nominee before engaging in preemptive warfare against whomever is selected.

We understand that the choice of a Supreme Court justice is an opportune time for Republicants to rally their base and raise funds for their causes, but let's be civil and not go on the attack without even knowing the nominee.

Politics isn't everything. On this Memorial Day, let us honor the memory of those who served and gave their lives for our nation, and let us honor and applaud our current men and women who serve today in our armed forces and risk their lives, especially those who served or are still serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and our front lines abroad. Thank you for your service and dedication, and God bless the United States of America.

Love how Republicans feel they can load the court with right wingers, the court has become political because of Republicans, Gore Bush Supremes, yet to have anything other than a conservative as a pick is calling upon the devil to destroy the Earth.

This is just one more way the GOP can appeal to the crazy base and lose more elections, in 2010 and 2012. But, please Republicans, don't do anything different from what you have done because it is working so well for you.

This will be really fun if Obama nominates a Hispanic woman. These guys will bend over backwards to burnish their credentials with their mostly Southern base, which they already own. Rush will be cheering them on and holding their feet to the fire, so they will march in lockstep. At the same time they will drive a deep wedge between Republicans and both women and the fast growing Hispanic population. This strategy could even turn Texas blue. The fact that they are more afraid of Limbaugh backlash than reaching out to grow the party is proof they are too dumb to be in power. This is why Rush is the liberals best friend.

We need to balance the SCOTUS. There are too many Corporate Lawyers that have been seated. We need an individual who has not come from the Country Club set and understand and can interpret the Constitution from the point of view and for "We the People".

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty." - Justice Louis D. Brandeis

this is about the future of the Republican Party, not who is going to sit on the Supreme Court

Leave it to a conservative to declare how choosing a nominee for the supreme court has nothing to do with choosing a nominee for the supreme court.

Ever stop and think that rhetoric like this might have something to do with why you got your asses handed to you in the last two election cycles? All I can say is keep it up. I'm looking forward to 2010 more and more each day.

Conservatives have learned that you can steal elections using the court. Enter big corporate money. Liberals don't have that kind of money and there's no monetary payoff for them. They may fight for their nominees, but since there's no money in it for them, they can't hire people to lobby. Naturally these lobbyists fan out over the corporate media [politico included] which is only too happy to have stories written for them, reducing their work load, by people who then become their advertisers.

So the fight is an illusion. Few voters like Robertson, but nobody asks them.

Conservatives have learned that you can steal elections using the court. Enter big corporate money. Liberals don't have that kind of money and there's no monetary payoff for them. They may fight for their nominees, but since there's no money in it for them, they can't hire people to lobby. Naturally these lobbyists fan out over the corporate media [politico included] which is only too happy to have stories written for them, reducing their work load, by people who then become their advertisers.

So the fight is an illusion. Few voters like Robertson, but nobody asks them.